1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. It appears that the claim petition was dismissed for default by the Tribunal on 16-7-1991 and the application for restoration of the petition was filed on 19-11-1992, i.e. after the period of limitation of 30 days from the date of dismissal. The Tribunal, refused to condone the delay holding that no sufficient cause was shown. In certain similar cases the files could not be traced and thereupon the advocate was requested to check the records of the Tribunal on 21-10-1992 and it was only then that it was realised that the petitions had been dismissed for default on 16-7-1991. Immediately on coming to know about the same, the restoration application was filed on 19-11-1992. This explanation was not accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal. Therefore, refused to restore the cases. The High Court also refused to interfere. It is against that order that the present appeals are filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel on this aspect of the matter and we do not see any reason why the explanation was held to be unacceptable. The Tribunal proceeded on a technical ground that the advocate being an agent of the client, knowledge of the former must be attributed to the latter also and if the former has been negligent the latter has ton bear the brunt. What was really necessary was to go into the question whether in fact the factual statement made was probable and acceptable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order dismissing the cases for default must be set aside. We set aside the said order and remit the matters to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the land on merits.

5. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.